The situation in Afghanistan has rightly dominated the news this weekend. There is little I can say about the situation there that will add to knowledge. I am fearful for the plight of so many, and most especially the women of the country. I worry about obsession of any sort, and its impact in creating collective error. And I know that this is not the end of the story of strife in Afghanistan, which is a tale centuries old, and seemingly as unresolved as ever. So, forgive me if I stand back from the situation in that country, and leave that to others to address. Let me think about three related issues that are important.
First, collective opinion can be as wrong in the USA and elsewhere as it can be in Afghanistan. It has been suggested that well over 70% of people in the US wanted the policy initiative started by Trump and ended by Biden of pulling out of Afghanistan to be seen through. It is very apparent, despite any bluster Johnson now musters, that this had support in the UK government. And as is now clear, it was wrong. Anything approaching stable government in Afghanistan was impossible without US air cover for the US-backed Afghan forces, whose fate does not bear thinking about now.
That collective opinion was wrong, in other words. The skill required of politicians is to decide when they might know better than popular opinion, and to reject the latter. Unfortunately, that this is the case is now very widely forgotten. In the age of both populism and the near universal desire to appease focus groups politicians think it their job to deliver what people think they want. But the role that they have is not that simple. If only they appreciated that the world would be a much better place.
It is for the politician to take the unpopular, hopefully wise, decision that rises above the lowest common denominator that public opinion sometimes is. Wisdom does not always belong to crowds, and it is not elitist to say so. It is instead recognition that the opinion of crowds can be subject to many malign influences (from the mainstream press onwards) that have to be filtered and appraised before the right course of action can be found.
If only we had enough politicians with that ability. Paul Mason noted the politicians he thought capable of thinking outside the tribal mould of politics in a way that gives them the ability to counter fascism this weekend. The list was short. In response to the question which politicians do you rate within the context of his concern he said:
Above all Clive Lewis, who understands the need for a central-left alliance, and for it to be based on an ethical anti-fascism. I think Caroline Lucas also gets it, and so does Jamie Driscoll, the North of Tyne mayor. Nadia Whittome is a young MP who speaks for her generation. But that's about it really.
I don't always agree with Paul. But I would struggle to come up with a much longer list of politicians meeting his spec, and am pleased to work with two of those who are on it, despite which its brevity is of massive concern.
Second, despite this all things can and do change. In a seemingly unrelated, but I think pertinent article in the FT this morning Ruchir Sharma of Morgan Stanley notes that few of the companies that dominated each of the decades from the 1970s onwards performed well in the decade following (Microsoft being a rare exception) and most declined significantly after once appearing so dominant. As he noted:
Competition and churn lie at the heart of a functioning capitalist system. That is why the giants of one decade so often deliver such underwhelming returns in the next one, and shrink in the popular imagination. Expect that pattern to recur unless capitalism is truly broken.
The last point is very relevant. It's not just in markets that change should be inevitable. So too should it be in politics. Circumstances, needs and ideas change with time. Just as that fact is what catches companies out and makes what once seemed so good then appear like an inadequate answer to the needs of the following period so too should that be true of politics. Change is not just inevitable, but desirable.
However, we are at a point where it's not just markets that might be broken (and they may be). Politics is also at great risk of being in this place. We are stuck with a two-party system of politics that is hopelessly inadequate and which, because of the arcane and utterly inadequate procedural systems of both parties, puts up candidates with few of the qualities really required to govern in the 21st century, or the experience and ideas to do so. The result is a broken political system that an unholy alliance between Labour and Tories - acting together very deliberately despite the facade of opposition and which the Labour left has no greater desire to change than the centrists in that party - maintains a corrupt democracy that cannot possibly meet the needs of the UK or its people right now.
Welsh and Scottish nationalism are not hard to explain in that case. But nor either is the general malaise of this country, which is led by those on most sides all too keen to make no real change. I am not advocating change in the style now seen in Afghanistan: change with the threat of violence attached is the antithesis of all I would wish for. Nor is it necessary. But to ensure that the stresses that create change can be managed requires a political system capable of itself adapting to circumstances. Neither the UK or the US have that. It makes them very vulnerable indeed. I would go so far as to say they are both dying democracies as a result. And we should worry about that.
What is third? Let's end on a lighter note. That is that things can get better. I watched last night's Prom. There was subversion in the programming, again, I think. The final work was Shostakovich's
Symphony No 9 in E flat major. It was the piece he was commissioned to write to celebrate the great victory of Stalin in WW2. Except that is not the message he delivered. He combined the depths of despair and the lightness of hope. Some humour was thrown in. The piece was courageous, inspired and a message that things can change, and that they really do. Russian is far from a place with a resolution as yet, but Stalin did go.
In summary, if we are to adapt to meet need we require systems that can accommodate change. The greatest worry that we have is that in far too many ways those systems do not exist. That absence is the threat that we face. It is that inability of systems to accommodate adaptation that leads to breakdown. We are too close to that too often now. Can we heed the warning signs?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Changing at pace is difficult unless one goes down the force route a la Taliban
How do you see Government in the West shaped to enable the swift change capability you advocate?
I agree our democracy is broken but my concern is that I do not understand what structures need to be available to us to change quickly whilst retaining stability in governance
PR is the essential start point absent in the UK and USA
PR driven by whom? Mainstream media dominates the airwaves and online world and drowns out much of what is novel and interesting and capable of advocating change
Hi Fred, I think you might be confusing
PR – public relations
With
PR – proportional representation
The latter is definitely required for revamping democracy.
An interesting post.
I think that we lack systems that can accommodate change because the systems we have are created (or shall we say created for us) to serve a narrow band of self interest driven by wealth which is a form of power.
So, many might share the same concerns and be heeding the warning signs but it is the rich and wealthy few (plus their enablers who are really the only people who get any trickledown, the lawyers, accountants, managers, money managers and politicians) – feeling safely insulated by their wealth – who increasingly cling to what these systems deliver for them. They keep for themselves the money that could help everyone – that is what the current systems and philosophies deliver.
And this fact is where we see democracy undone.
I think that we have been sleep walked into this situation – those driving it whether Neo-liberal or just the greedy rich are extremists really – they have everything but always come back for more because they are addicted to money which as I said is power.
The only way ‘money-power’ will be dealt with is by politicians or a political movement that rejects the narrowness of benefit. I hear this morning that the Greens and the SNP are talking about a strategic relationship.
The buds of such a movement perhaps?
But no matter what happens – even if Labour has a much overdue epiphany – that ‘money-power’ – the ability of the few to outspend everyone else to control society’s narratives in the pursuit of power – is what will count. The crux of the problem lies there in my opinion.
Boris Johnson is showing what an absolute disgrace he is as a leader this weekend. Afghanistan is a failure of both British and US foreign policy. This follows on from the failure of Russian foreign policy. Both superpowers have tried to control the country and it is astonishing that after all this time Afghanistan is not in a position to defend itself from the Taliban. As long as western forces were there the Taliban were an irritant to them but were never going to take them on or take control of the country. They have clearly played a waiting game and what we are now seeing is an inability of what we have left behind to defend itself.
According to Johnson as reported by the BBC.
Mr Johnson said the UK would work with the UN Security Council and other Nato countries to stop Afghanistan “lapsing back into terror” and called for an “international effort” from the West.
Really? If there is one likely guarantee of all this it is that Afghanistan will now become a breeding ground for terror. The people of Afghanistan, especially women, will find the Taliban to be absolutist in their rule. They don’t compromise.
I have no idea what the answer is here, but I think we will find that as time passes it would have been better if the US, UK, NATO, whoever had simply stayed in. The world just became a more dangerous place.
I believe that the speed and non violence shown by the much reformed Taliban in turning history in 48 hours between Friday 13th and last night needs to be seen clear sightedly. Certainly not helpful to do so with 20 year old propaganda lies by our politicians and Generals – these who personal profit from the MIC. As Bozo suddenly decided the Cabinet Office briefing room A is worthy of occupation after his holiday break when it wasn’t at the Covid outbreak last year – ‘it’s just a room!’ He said taunting the then leaders of the Opposition .
Anyway let us be optimistic until actual events and evidence shows otherwise. I had some conversations about it over the weekend down the Club – a lie I heard was that 30 school girls had been killed during the lightning advance. Total lie, nobody could give me a citation.
This is the first time in Afghanistan’s centuries long struggles against being the target of Great Gamers that they have united the tribes into a disciplined force that has clearly well planned and negotiated the revolutionary liberation of yet another occupation by external forces.
I expect the fears of barbaric ‘Islam’ are misplaced and more apt for the originators of that t he Saudi Wahhabism – but let’s not focus on that eh?
Don’t believe me ? How about the Washington Post?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/08/10/afghanistan-papers-book-dick-cheney-attack/
The fact that a World Bank Crony has been mismanaging Afghanistan and overseeing mass corruption through the country as many locals and foreigners filled their boots for best part of 20 years , whilst record opium was harvested is of no interest to commentators.
The chaotic withdrawal scenes are reminiscent of Saigon regardless of what Biden claims and the responsibility lies directly with this Administration as it thought it could choreograph the withdrawal to chime with Sept 11th.
The only shooting I heard about was US troops stopping their local henchmen – and they appear to be mostly men where are their women and kids? – storming the fences to get on the military transports.
Oops they did it again!
Fingers crossed that a robust governance and political system delivers the socioeconomic to lift all Afghanistan so that they don’t leave in their thousands annually to seek a life well away from their homelands as they have for the last 20 – 40 years.
What they need is sound Finances and Governance including a stable currency and I believe that much support should be given for them to achieve that – the WB/IMF monkey can not be allowed to sit on their backs.
As the Labour Party is forced ever rightwards, sliding back into Blairism, the more I’m convinced of the need to adopt PR. Obviously PR isn’t going to be a universal cure-all in itself but it does seem to be the best way to elect a genuinely representative body to parliament. I wonder if adopting this policy as a single-issue platform might well be the best hope of pushing this through? Gathering people around a single banner and focusing on the one message seems to have been successful in garnering support. The Make Votes Matter group appears to be making some headway with this, albeit far more slowly than I would have hoped. Whether the Labour Party is led by Starmer or some other ‘centrist’ (for want of a better term) member of the PLP in the near future seems immaterial as none that I can recall are exactly straining to convince the public of the benefits of PR. Creating a political lever such as this might prove to be a strong enough tool to convince enough Labour MPs to adopt this and accept the need for a political alliance to oust the Tories.
I’m not the biggest fan of Paul Mason by any measure but I’m glad to read his (very short) list of who he considers to be non-tribal thinkers, particularly Jamie Driscoll, someone I regard as vastly underrated and would very much like to see elected to parliament.
No! You leave wor Jamie to do the job he is best at – working with real local people to make real things happen in the real world. Until there are credible working examples of a modern socialist alternative, or something like it, nobody will trust MPs to scale it up.
Driscoll’s ability to get things done is one of the major reasons why I rate him so highly Paul (demonstarble achievment over empty and broken promises by a politician is so rare but very welcome) and his willingness to forge working relationships even with ideological opponents in order to turn his intentions into reality speak volumes about his pragmatism. He is an exemplary mayor – I particularly like that he writes a weekly column in the local paper detailing exactly what he has done each week and using that in conjunction with social media to engage with people.
The adoption of PR is, if not a necessary pre-requisite then at the very least, a huge step towards creating a political environment that would foster a viable socialist party as well as genuinely expanding democracy. Arguably PR would also make Tory governments less likely events. As the North of Tyne Mayor he has limited national media exposure whereas should he enter parliament he could use that platform to help effectively promote PR.
I really believe that as long as we have FPTP as an electoral system Labour will never be able to offer a radical alternative to the Tories. In part this is because the Tories have perfected the art of winning the FPTP battlegrounds of England. They don’t care about Scotland or Wales, any seats they win outside of middle England are just a bonus to them. Labour however always needed a pretty good showing in Scotland and that is now over with the rise of the SNP.
FPTP has effectively tied the hands of the more radical parties as the electoral battleground becomes concentrated in a minority of marginal mostly middle England seats. The recent LibDem bi-election win is a case in point. To win it the LibDems in part played on the fears of traditional Tory voters of the new home building plans that the Tories are putting forward. So, are the LibDems against building new homes now? The country is desperate for more affordable housing, but try convincing the nimbys of that in key FPTP seats.
Only under PR would Labour be free to offer a genuine radical alternative, even then they would most likely have to form a radical alliance. However, there is something good here in that the Tories increasingly have no friends to form alliances with. I doubt the LibDems would ever get into bed with them again. The SNP, no chance. The Greens, no chance. All the tories have are a few NI fringe parties and even there the DUP have just had their fingers burnt by teaming up with the backstabbing Tories. PR is the only thing left to end Tory misrule. Labour need to get on board.
The “jewel in the crown” of FPTP is the so-called “safe seat”.
Recent bye-elections have shown this to be an increasingly fluid concept.
To change to PR will require sufficient Labour Maps to realize that the only way they can improve their chances to hold onto their £80 k per annum and associated perks, will be to build upon progressive alliances amongst their respective constituency electorates.
Political times are changing rapidly.
The times demand change and require agile political thinkers.
Are they all aware of this? Clive Lewis is, but is he alone?
I mean “Labour MPs”!
It looks like it
First hand feedback from people canvassing in the by-election suggests that it was about such more than housing and HS2. Some real dissatisfaction with Johnson and the Tories for many of the reasons that get listed here – cronyism, Covid, Brexit and incompetence. Hence the massive swing. One could take that as encouraging but it still points to the need for some form of alliance and PR beyond that.
As to housing, Im not sure 5 bed executive homes in rural areas solve the problem of affordable secure housing. Its much more about social housing and cities where the most acute problems are. Id recommend a look at Ian Mulheirn’s work for a more contrarian but properly researched view that challenges the mantra of ‘300,000’ homes (which the construction industry loves).
https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/part-1-is-there-really-a-housing-shortage-89fdc6bac4d2
https://gilesyb.medium.com/ian-mulheirn-says-uk-housing-is-not-a-supply-problem-no-one-can-prove-him-wrong-8faf6d22e8ae
Ian also picks up the dysfunctional role of finance, and housing as a financial asset rather than a roof over one’s head.
I have spent time in Afghanistan (albeit before the Soviet invasion). Living up in the Hindu Kush ( not far from the now destroyed statues at Bamian), several things were clear. Afghans, like everybody, had fierce local loyalties. Life was hard, and religion was vitally important. Local traditions were complex, and local foreign speakers (I got by on a mixture of English, French and German) were not willing to explain the intricacies to a non Muslim foreigner.
So, the West thought it knew best, and invaded, on some very dubious grounds (with 19 out of 21 hijackers being Saudi citizens, Riyadh would have been a more logical target than Kabul).
Marcus Aurelius is worth reading for his views of a just war, and I do not think it would have ever made it.
The result? Thousands of dead, trillions of dollars, truly an example of hubris followed by nemesis.
There is a lot being written on social media about Afghanistan. One common theme is the breeding ground for terror. In 2001 the country was giving refuge to Al Qaeda but it wasn’t sending terror groups around the world.
I am wary of the idea this exports of terrorists could be the future of the country. Terrorism isn’t an ideology. It is an attempt to maintain or change the status quo by intimidation. For many groups it is war by other means, other than regular uniformed forces. They tend to attract the idealists ( where, often their judgementality overrides humanity and compassion) and the psychopaths. The latter might do it because they like it but there are political, in the broadest terms, aims.
People who have little more than light infantry weapons, taking on regular forces, have to expect high casualties, so it is not surprising they make use of religious rhetoric.
We should not just accept that Islamic Terrorism is all about religious expansionist. IMHO religion is invoked to give substance to their aims. If we look at the last 80 years and the emergence of Islamic states from colonialism, with Turkey and Iran being exceptions, but still impacted by defeat or occupation, and see the number of times the West has intervened or used force, establishment of the state of Israel, the coup in Iran in 1953 by the CIA, the British, French and. Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, the wars in ’67 and ’73, the raid to free hostages from Iran, and the supply of weapons to Iraq to fight Iran (including poison gas which some say only happened because the US nothing, the massacre of Muslims at Sbrenicia (twice the number of deaths as 9/11), the deaths in Iraq due to The UN sanctions, one, can see it would be easy to construct a narrative of an aggressive West which must be resisted. In the age of the Internet, it will recruit across the world and often people of some education.
If we just see ‘terrorism’ as the product of a culture, we will miss a lot of importance and make it more difficult to deal with in the long run. Extremists thrive on crisis and violence. We need to look more carefully at the narratives we are given.
In 2001 Iran gave NATO help to take Kabul (they didn’t like the Taliban either) and offered to reset relations with the West. (I heard Jack Straw say this at a literary conference and read it elsewhere).
They withdrew it when shortly afterwards when Bush gave his Axis of Evil speech including Iran. A wasted opportunity.
The Iranians haven’t funded or inspired terrorist attacks in Europe. The funding and teachings for that came from the Wahabbi cult in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Their madrasass or colleges in Pakistan created the Taliban (the word means students). Yet our governments continue to fawn over the rulers of these state. I can see reasons. We get a lot of oil from there. The oil lobby is the most powerful in the USA, contributing many government officials. It is allied to the banking industry as oil is traded in dollars. Iran is opposed to Israel who have kept up a constant warning of a nuclear threat (denied by Americans intelligence agencies) and there is a powerful weapons industry. We want to remain in the good books of Washington. I am told by ex pats that the Saudi Air Force would soon have to stop operations without western contractors to service their planes.
After the Manchester bombing one politician gave a speech saying we should have “difficult conversations” with Saudi Arabia. I waited for the media outrage at this, breaking of ranks. I didn’t see any.
The politician was Jeremy Corbyn. Whatever his other shortcomings, I give him credit for that.
I hope these events can give an opportunity to ask some searching questions about the reasons for intervention, the methods and the consequences.
I can hope